NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court last week 100k serious exception to a press release issued by the Chief Blection Commissioner, Mr. T.N. Seshan, about the order of the Election Commission rejecting the proposal of the Center to hold elections in Jammu and Kashmir in December last year.
Instead of informing the Union Government about its decision, the Com: mission issued a press release, on November 14, and the Government came to know about the Commission’s decision through it, the Apex Court noted.
The exception was taken by a three judge bench comprising Mr. Justice 4,8.Verma, Mr, Justice S.P, Bharucha and Mr, Justice K, Venkat as wamy, during the hearing of a writ petition challenging the rejection of the Goverrnment proposal for holding elections.
The whole problem is that while the CEC thinks that he has all the powers, others are not sure whether they have any power or not,” Mr. Justice Verma observed.
Mr. Justice Bharucha advised the CEC not to rush to the press and create the impression that he has Veto.
Appearing for the Union of India, Attorney General Milo K. Banerjes, submitted that for general elections cither to Parliament or State Assemblies, it was for the Government to decide when the elections should be held.
The Attorney General contended that it was up to the Government of the day even to cut short the term of Parliament or the Assembly and choose the time for polls best salted in a given situation.
Therefore, when we come to a situation as in the case of Jammu and Kashmir, the decisions to hold elections is unimpeachably that of the Center.
The EC has no jurisdiction except to Suggest timetable within which the dates for polling are to be fixed,” Mr. Banerjee added.
At this stage, senior ‘counsel, Mr. Kapil Sibal, for the BC, intervened tat’ both the Government and the Commission had a role to play in this regard.
The petitioner, the Panthers Party chief, Mr. Bhim Singh, cited various provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution having a bearing on the issue involved in the petition and. their equivalent in the Constitution of India and Representation of People Act.
He submitted that the rote of the EC was only in the preparation of electoral rolls and superintendence, direction, control and conduct of election.
It had no role to play in deciding the time of the polls, which was the exclusive domain of the Center.
The decision of the Commission in rejecting the Center’s proposal was unconstitutional and liable to be quashed, he added.
Article extracted from this publication >> January 17, 1996
